If Only Hunters Could Sell Venison

Could loosening rules on deer meat help combat a suburban scourge?

What explains the fact that we have a glut of white-tailed deer in this country, yet an estimated 85% of the venison sold in restaurants and at meat counters is imported from farms in New Zealand?

The Kiwis tout the high quality of their meat. But the main reason is that, unlike hunters in other countries, Americans are not allowed to sell their own wild game meat. The "wild game" on our restaurant menus isn't wild—it's farm-raised, or else the chef is breaking laws that ban such sales. The laws were passed as part of a campaign in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to end the devastation of wild populations by commercial hunters.

ENLARGE

Byron Eggenschwiler

But times have changed. On Oct. 7, scientists at the Wildlife Society's annual meeting in Milwaukee broached the idea—heretical to many—of allowing the limited sale of wild venison again as an incentive to reduce deer numbers and damage.

The white-tailed deer population of the U.S. is now estimated at somewhere between 30 million and 45 million. Proponents of allowing wild venison sales say the six million whitetails that licensed hunters will kill this season aren't nearly enough to contain, let alone to reduce, this population.

Inducements to increase the harvest—such as allowing more kills per hunter, setting up donation programs for the hungry and lengthening hunting seasons—have not worked well. This is especially true in our suburbs and growing exurbs, where deer increasingly concentrate. Hunting with guns is widely prohibited in these areas, and hunting with bows and arrows hasn't proven effective.

The new incentive would involve targeting overabundant whitetails in specific places—neighborhoods, parks, greenbelts, townships—for tightly controlled culls by specially qualified shooters. Hired sharpshooters already perform this task in many places, at taxpayer expense. The difference is that, instead of being donated to food pantries or sent to landfills, the venison and byproducts could be sold, perhaps as a locavore delicacy, to recoup some costs.

The costs of deer damage in the U.S. continue to mount—from collisions with motor vehicles, overgrazing in forests, habitat loss for smaller animals, and damage to crops, gardens and landscaping—as does concern about Lyme disease. In August, three ecologists with the Nature Conservancy, the habitat-protection group, asserted in an online article that, over the short to medium term, deer are now more destructive to forests than climate change.

"Sadly, I spend much of my time in ecological disaster zones—forests devastated by too many deer," says Thomas J. Rawinski, a U.S. Forest Service scientist in Durham, N.H. "I truly believe that this has become the single greatest conservation challenge of our time."

The Wildlife Society, a conservation group made up of nearly 10,000 scientists, wildlife managers and academics, put the idea of selling wild venison on its national convention agenda after a previous effort to bring it up at another national forum was squelched. Organizers of the four-hour panel on wild venison sales were so apprehensive that they hired a professional facilitator to maintain decorum—which was unnecessary, as it turned out. Most of the 70 people in the room were open to the idea, with reservations, said several attendees.

By the end of the 19th century, the populations of many wild species in the U.S. had collapsed as a result of unregulated hunting: Professionals had killed any wild animals and birds they could sell for food, feathers, fur and other byproducts. That included deer, whose numbers fell from an estimated 30 million when Columbus arrived to 350,000 by 1900. Jurisdictions across the country responded by banning venison sales.

At the same time, conservationists adopted the so-called "North American model" of wildlife conservation. Wildlife would belong to all people to enjoy under rules enforced by governments—mainly state wildlife agencies—specifying when they could hunt or trap and what kind and how many creatures they could kill.

It worked—too well. Deer hunting became the foundation of a multi-billion-dollar industry, or what author Al Cambronne, in his book "Deerland," calls "the deer-industrial complex." Deer hunters account for about 80% of the $34 billion spent annually on equipment, licenses, travel and other sport hunting expenses. But in many places, the scourge posed by the growing deer population has spurred revisionist thinking.

Allowing the sale of wild venison strikes many wildlife managers and deer-hunting groups as a return to the dark old days. "I find it repulsive to even consider the idea of demoting game wildlife species to the status of domestic livestock to be exploited, sold or bartered for personal gain," wrote James E. Miller, a retired deer expert from Mississippi State University, in a statement for the Wildlife Society panel.

The idea gained some traction two years ago when the Wildlife Society Bulletin, a peer-reviewed scientific quarterly, published an article titled: "Regulated Commercial Harvest to Manage Overabundant White-Tailed Deer: An Idea to Consider?" Its authors were seven government and academic wildlife ecologists.

They noted that the vaunted North American model already has loopholes. Trapping and selling wild fur-bearers is allowed. Catching and selling both freshwater and saltwater fish is, too. Cutting and selling trees for lumber in publicly owned forests has been sanctioned.

David Drake, a University of Wisconsin wildlife ecologist who introduced the panel, emphasized that commercial harvest wouldn't replace any current management tools but "would simply add another tool to our toolbox." It would not push out sport hunting or even take place in the same areas.

The next step, he said, is to seek a state government's approval for a pilot project to test the idea's effectiveness. A state wildlife agency might issue a commercial deer harvesters license, allowing a qualified group to cull a predetermined number of deer in a specific location and to sell the harvest, perhaps at local farmers markets.

Meanwhile, restaurants will continue to use meat from New Zealand, which first exported frozen venison to the U.S. in 1975. Now marketed as Cervena, half of it arrives fresh. The animals are mainly domesticated hybrids of red stag, a cousin of elk. Grass-fed on large farms, they are slaughtered before they are 3 years old.

The U.S. has an estimated 7,800 deer farms. Some sell venison and bottled deer urine, which hunters use as an attractant. Most concentrate on selective breeding to produce bucks with big antlers for high-priced hunts on fenced preserves—a practice decried as "junk hunting" by traditionalists, who insist on a "fair chase."

—Mr. Sterba is the author of "Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards Into Battlegrounds," available in paperback next month.

"Deer, whose numbers fell from an estimated 30 million when Columbus arrived to 350,000 by 1900 ..."

Seriously? Vast tracts of the US were unpopulated (and largely unvisited by humans) in 1990 -- areas far larger than most nations. It is inconceivable that only 350,000 deer roamed America 113 years ago.

To place this in perspective, there are now 3300 collisions involving deer and motor vehicles on the average DAY, and 1.2 million collisions every year. Multiply that by several thousand dollars per accident (an average that involves major accidents and loss of life) and the costs run into the billions every year.

In Heart of the Stag (1984), a film from the hearty hunters down in Oz, Bruno Lawrence encounters a family. A father he gradually discovers is having sex with his teenage daughter, who, of course, Bruno is crazy about too. The unaware mother is wheelchair bound, the father owns what amounts to his own deer ranch kingdom. Gradually the old man discovers that Bruno is onto him, threatening to upset his hegemony in both the deer kingdom and his family. He warns: "Stay away from me stags.., and me dotter too!" Of course Bruno's having none of that. This little known film came at the end of the Oz film renaissance period which arrived on US shores as a challenge to our own hale and hearty westerns. For cynics, of whom I am one, I heartily recommend this as the black comedy to end all black comedy. For those among ye who hunt, I should take it as a warning!

Accordingly, my skin crawls when I hear of NEW PLANS and systems for wildlife management. Kinda’ reminds me of some other government brainstorms and programs. I say give farmers incentives to allow hunting, which they individually control, on their own farms again. Open longer seasons. Raise limits. Make more WMAs handicap accessible. Not all states do these things and certainly all states don’t do all of these things.

Also, I know/knew many, many farmers west of the Mississippi. Nearly all, who liked venison, shot deer whenever they wanted one. They fed them, why not? They certainly were not hurting the population in row crop country. However, game wardens would arrest them, if they took over one deer. Let farmers shoot what they need without a hassle.

I'm surprised there is anyone at the WSJ who has ever been off of concrete, let alone been hunting and this article is certainly indicative of that.

Number one is the fact that too many non-hunters are making decisions about taking game and game management/populations. The Wisconsin DNR is one of the most notorious examples. For years, hunters had been pleading to raise dear limits up to three to six antlered and/or antlerless deer. In the mid nineties the DNR grudgingly raised limits in certain hunting zones to two, deer, but the hunter had to take an antlered deer first. That was way too little too late. The herd became diseased with large losses of deer and deer unfit to eat. In other states, I’ve seen deer so badly covered with ticks that their faces looked like peanut clusters and deer starving because of over population. Basically, the liberal do-gooders have fouled up hunting in many places, because they don’t listen to hunters. We hunters warned of this problem as far back as the late sixties and early seventies, but were treated like blood-thirsty, kill-crazed defilers of the environment.

Commercial hunting or farmer venison sales would only further limit the average hunter’s access to hunting lands and deer. For nearly two centuries in America, farmers would permit hunters to hunt on their land. Indeed, when I was young, we used to help farmers get their crops out so they could hunt with us. We used to buy the groceries and the farmer’s wife would cook up big meals for us and we always shared our game. Hunting season was an American ritual and wonderful times. Every year, local hunters got together and donated game to the VFW for a wild game feed and we also had a banquet for the farmers upon whose land we hunted.

Three phenomena changed that. First, with increased urban populations and fewer people actually raised around hunting and farming, more and more problems and friction developed between farmers and hunters. Biggest complaints were leaving livestock gates open, city hunters shooting livestock and blatantly arrogant trespassing, etc.

The second phenomenon was lease hunting. Farmers began closing their land to the average hunter. More and more, hunting has become the sport for those who can afford to pay and pay they did. Hunting leases have gone out of sight and into the thousands of dollars for only a few days hunting.

The third change to hunting was large corporate farms, driving smaller family farms out of business. Corporate farms either prohibit hunting for liability reasons or turn to lease hunting.

Consequently, there were fewer and fewer places to hunt for the average hunter, causing fewer and fewer hunters taking deer. Hunters are evermore corralled into national or state forests and wildlife management areas (WMAs), creating dangerous hunter densities, with all of the game run out of the woods until after the short seasons are over.

Wild Goose overpopulation has become a problem too. In many areas they are pests, creating hygiene problems and devastatintg certain crops. All of this is because bureaucrats and academics, who never or rarely hunt, are managing wildlife instead of hunters.

"The herd became diseased with large losses of deer and deer unfit to eat. In other states, I’ve seen deer so badly covered with ticks that their faces looked like peanut clusters and deer starving because of over population. Basically, the liberal do-gooders have fouled up hunting in many places, because they don’t listen to hunters. We hunters warned of this problem as far back as the late sixties and early seventies, but were treated like blood-thirsty, kill-crazed defilers of the environment. "

Mr. Steele writes amazingly well and points out yet another unintended consequence of liberal stupidity courtesy of their government micromanagement.

White tailed deer are a RESERVOIR for lime disease. Ixodes scapularis (the tick vector) must feed on a deer in order to pick up the organism to transmit to humans. But if there is no deer -> no lime disease.

The explosion of deer has mirrored our increase in lime disease incidence and prevalence year after year. But does this matter to environazism? No. Liberals care more for animals than they do for humans.

In addition, the poor deer are overpopulated and starving. Thank you, liberals.

Disease follows stupidity. The ticks would thank liberals if they could speak.

"The single greatest conservation challenge of our time" is wild deer? Really? Not desertification - from which the US suffers to a far greater degree than many third world nations? Not biodiversity decline and extinctions? Not the vanishing life and acidification of the oceans? Not poaching? It's deer?

No, it's not deer, it's our single minded attention to immediate self interest. If you look behind the ballooning deer population you will see the real culprit, our past market driven interventions in a natural system we do not understand and will never be powerful enough to control: Boom bust! A market phenomenon. To which we propose a simple market solution. What could go wrong?

I’ve lived in upstate NY for a loooong time. Don’t ask how long, that’s not fair. To keep it short and civil, let’s just say, grandfather, very gray, falling out.

We have experienced, since 9/11 especially, but even before that, an influx of NYC “Citiots”.

They generally start out by being arrogant bungholes who don’t take the time to realize that the average education levels of the adults in parts of upstate NY are very comparable for several NYC communities, and way above others.

But. The biggest thing they have a problem with is the environment. No. Not the environment like Greenpeace. Or Save the Whales.

Squirrels, skunks and especially, ………………

BAMBI!

It’s hilarious to hear them complain to the locals about the wildlife they came to be nearer. Especially funny are the liberals who think all you have to do is talk to a squirrel and the squirrels will stop eating the Citiot’s bird food from the bird feeder. (Literally. Talk to a squirrel like they talk to their dogs about barking. I have a very dear Citiot friend who thinks her dog can comprehensively understand English. And she has these ongoing dialogues with the poor beast, who looks at her like she’s the most interesting thing in the world, until someone nearby opens a can of cat food. Ooops. “We’ve talked about this before.” I kid you not.)

The same kind of people who think that a deer is a beautiful creature until the herd of deer wipes out their new very expensive environmentally friendly landscaping overnight, and pokes a hole walking in the coy pond, are the folks who “KNOW” what’s right for the locals. But detest deer hunting which would help control the herd.

Bungholes. And it takes YEARS of neighborly angst until they finally learn to coexist. (If ever.)

Wonder a couple of things. Some of us might like to have x number of pounds of venison per year to add to the menu, but can't go hunting. Ever had venison sausage? In states that allow 2 deer a year per person, what if hunters were allowed to contract with non hunters using the CSA model some farmers and ranchers are using to sell direct to the public? States already have the regulatory and license apparatus in place. Hunters looking for a second income source or love hunting could get a special permit allowing them to take a specified number of game each year, selling quarters, halves or wholes to their customers. There would be little to no overhead since they would be culling wild herds so an excellent inexpensive meat source could be established along with a stream of income for interested rural families.

To all the anti-government complainers: state and federal government wildlife regulation, along with private hunting groups have been responsible for the recovery of game birds, mammals and fish during the last century. We now have a problem with the non-regulation of deer, especially near urban areas. We need to have both government wildlife experts and hunting groups use safe methods of hunting deer and using the meat. It's only a matter of time, since the problem is going to worsen.

Just my opinion, but like anything put under (government) regulation, such a plan would require bureaucratic bungling oversight, associated costs and of course manipulation and attempts by certain dubious characters at graft, exploitation and corruption. Like stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime. Look at the millions being spent by a broke government to kill rainbow, brook and brown trout in Yellowstone to make habitat for cutthroat. The (deer) species would not benefit, and any intended social or public gain would be muted or not realized at all. I grew up hunting and shooting, and while I have no problem killing an animal for food, there is no room in my head for killing for "sport". The economics of hunting for food make no sense to all but a very small segment of the population. Meanwhile, government couldn't go to the bathroom without making a federal project and costing millions. If you are the rare land-owner with a deer problem, kill your 2 deer per year, per person and/or build a fence. It's far cheaper than buying all the goofy accouterments sold to "sportsmen", or paying increased taxes for more policy, game wardens and bureaucrats. People can't seem to find the capacity to leave things alone. If you're an urbanite and want venison, go to the meat market or buy it on-line. And save your ammunition for fending off tyranny, or for when the government says we can no longer buy or reload it.

No need to worry about selling, just triple the authorized kills by permit and dump the excess carcasses in the landfill. These vermin are way, way over populated and I would happily have a hunter come to my yard to "cull" the herds that stroll through.

In rural Pennsylvania, thousands of deer hunters butcher what they kill, put it in a freezer, and eat it all winter. My mother could cook a deer roast in a crock pot that was better than beef. I didn't know that venison served in restaurants was imported. Wild deer meat has almost no fat and has not been shot full of antibiotics and hormones like a lot of commercial meat. And one more comment: Anyone who shoots fenced in deer on a "deer farm" is no hunter.

Will not pass. If you can come up with a heavy handed government expanding solution that is allowed. Don't even think of a market based solution. Remember we are governed by authoritarian collectivist Democrats and wimpy soft socialist Republicans.

Good point, derek. Even if cash sales of venison are not legalized for health (FDA inspection) reasons, legalizing the sale of antlers and pelts would accomplish the same result --- i.e., thinning the herd.

Well William, I, and it sounds like you, can remember well the days when our population was below 180 million, especially 210 million, and farmers still constituted a solid 20% or more of the population. America was a great place to live, even in the Northeast. We should have shut down immigration back then and never have underwritten massive illegitimacy. We wouldn't have most of our problems today. Not saying anything about ethnicity, just talking numbers.

Urban sprawl has ruined this nation. The nation has lost touch with its roots and the values which made it great. I’m not “Bible-slappin’ either”. I’m just talking about the things we did and didn’t do to hold together the weft and warp of a well ordered society. Part of that has occurred because our massive urban populations have become like states unto themselves, citadels of inward looking, often profoundly uneducated, self-centered and intolerant people. I went to school in cities of about 250,000, west of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. My grandparents farmed in Oklahoma. I went to college in much smaller communities and my wife and I lived off of the fish and game we took as well as my GI Bill. We rented an old farm house, with a garden, and hunting and fishing was accessible all around us. BTW, we became very proficient at wild game cooking. All of our friends were too. It was/is delightful. Sliced deer heart & tenderloin, “butterflied” (SP?) and fried in butter is a delicacy while butchering deer. Great times!

Oh well, today America is what it is. All we can do is work hard to impede the urban sprawl and rectify our problems. Fortunately, today we live in rural, coastal Georgia, a long way from…many problems.

States where deer hunting takes place already have effective and well established departments of natural resources, or other wildlife agencies. The administrative and enforcement infrastructure would already be in place. A new bureaucracy would not have to be built.

you obviously do not live in CT or any other semi-urban state where deer are a MENACE but even with 2-acre zoning, there is NO hunting allowed (so much for killing my 2 deer a year). Providing an economic incentive would probably result in more landowners allowing controlled hunting by professionals on their land and, maybe, make a dent in the overpopulation which devastates landscaping and is a menace on the highways.

Here in exurban Detroit, the food banks and soup kitchens won't take it, even hard-frozen (we'll save the "why" for another day,) so we stand outside the food bank and give it away in 5 lb packages to folks on their way out.

Also, we give a couple hundred pounds each year to local Mother Houses and monasteries.

The big problem is that deer are a hardy, prolific animal. They have no natural predators, except man, between the east coast and the Rockies anymore. Many does fawn twice a year or drop twins. Some reintroduced wolves in the north-northwest help, but wolves are a dangerous animal and they are creating serious problems with human populations and livestock. Thank the Feds for that.

Uneducated do-gooders over managed and/or over limited deer limits for far too many decades until they got completely out of control. Government bureaucracies always screw the pooch. Now they want to go back to those same bureaucrats for a solution to the problem they ignorantly created.

Georgia and Texas have long deer seasons, so folks who cannot take a week or two off for hunting can hunt on weekends for three or four months. In both states the hunter may take many deer; 10 in Georgia and 12? in Texas. Southern deer tend to be quite small, so one needs two or three to equal a North Missouri or Iowa row crop fed deer. My biggest buck in North Missouri was 230 pounds, but I've killed many between 150 and 200 pounds, even a big fat doe which weighed 150 pounds. She was good eatin'!

Deer never went to waste in our house. We made sausage, deer burger (mixed w/beef tallow) and had many steaks and roasts. We have a hundreds of great recipes.

Commercial game hunting is a big mistake in America! Let the hunters manage the game with realistic game limits.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.